I responded firmly that if I had the slightest hesitation about enforcing
whatever law the Congress passed, I would not be sitting in front of him.
Hathaway didn't question that. His concern was that no individual

"should enforce his particular religious or moral beliefs into
the policy-making area."

I responded that

"the Congress had made a judgment last year that restricting federal
funds for abortions was a matter appropriate for legislation."

As to my personal views, I was expressing them so every senator who
had to vote on my confirmation would know them.

Unlike the exchange with Packwood, the exchange with Hathaway ended
on a conciliatory note. He appreciated my candor and hoped that I would
maintain an open mind during the course of the debate on abortion.

But neither the press nor the American public was prepared for any conciliation
on this issue. Before I had departed the hearing room the first of some
6,473 letters and telegrams and hundreds of phone calls, unyielding on
one side or the other, began arriving at my office. That evening, the Washington
Stars' front page headlined: ANGRY SENATOR BLASTS CALIFANO ON ABORTION.
The story featured Packwood's questioning and his "tough
luck" comment. It did report my commitment to enforce the law vigorously,
and it questioned an assumption that Packwood and Hathaway had made Ñ that
the woman's right to an abortion established in Roe v. Wade implied a right
to federal funds to pay for the procedure. Earlier in the week, during
oral arguments before the Supreme Court on pending abortion cases, several
Justices had questioned any such right to funds. There were indications
that the Court would throw the scalding issue back into the legislative-executive
political process. That possibility only enhanced the significance of my
views Ñ and President Carter's. That evening Carter telephoned me:
"How did the testimony go today?"

''Most of the questions were on your campaign promises, like welfare
reform and national health insurance, and then typical special interest
questions about HEW's constituencies and busing. I testified for seven
hours. But the fireworks came in the thirty minutes of questioning about
abortion."

"I saw what you said in the paper and on television. You hang tough.
You're saying the right things."

"Thank you, Mr. President."

In public comments outside the hearing, Packwood expressed deep concern
and anger. Javits predicted a long and contentious struggle over the issue.
And Karen Mulhauser of the National Abortion Rights Action League said
it was

The lead editorial in the Washington Post, my former
law client, was headed

''Mr. Califano on Abortion,'' and took after me and my new boss:

''The fact that each man reached this conclusion as a matter of personal
conviction makes the conclusion itself no less troubling. For, personal
or not, the effect of their common position would be to deny the poor what
is available to the rich and not-so-rich. To argue, as they do, that the
emphasis should be on other medical services and/or pregnancy services
does not address this inequity."

On Inauguration Day, January 20, 1977, the new President sent the nominations
of the nine Cabinet members-designate whose hearings were completed to
the Senate for confirmation. Eight were swiftly confirmed. Senator Packwood
denied the Senate the necessary unanimous consensus to consider my nomination
that day.

Majority Leader Bob Byrd called my nomination to the Senate floor on
January 24. Packwood was vehement. He said I held my views so passionately,
so vigorously, that

"I think it is impossible that Mr. Califano will be able to fairly
administer the laws involving abortion, assuming that the Supreme Court
says women .... continue to have a right to an abortion, and that they
continue to have a right to federal funds to help them. "

Javits shared Packwood's view favoring federal funds for abortion, but
he felt my qualifications in other areas merited my being confirmed. Other
Republicans, from Senate Minority Leader Howard Baker to archconservative
Carl Curtis, the ranking minority member of the Finance Committee, supported
the nomination. The debate was brief, the vote 95 to Packwood's 1. Strom
Thurmond was the first to phone to tell me of the Senate confirmation and
congratulate me.

I called to thank each senator who had spoken on my behalf. Then I thought
about Packwood. I felt that he had been petty in holding my nomination
up four days, and that there had been an element of grandstanding in it.
However, I had to accept the fact that his beliefs on abortion were as
sincerely held as mine.

From his point of view, putting that extra spotlight on me may have
provided a little insurance that I would be careful to enforce a law that
funded abortions more widely than I considered appropriate. I had been
confirmed overwhelmingly, and I had to deal with him as a member of the
Senate Finance Committee that had jurisdiction over such key HEW programs
as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare. I swallowed a little
hard and called him:

"Bob, I understand your view on abortion. But I'm now Secretary
and you and I agree on virtually every other social issue. I hope our differences
on abortion won't prevent us from working together."